Professors Prove Single Photons Do Not Exceed the Speed of Light

Discussion in 'Physics' started by nsaspook, Jul 25, 2011.

  1. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
    http://www.ust.hk/eng/news/press_20110719-893.html

     
  2. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    I saw a similar article in physorg.com. It is all well and good, but I suspect we have already moved beyond that. Entanglement seems to violate the FTL principle, and I haven't heard any good explanations about that yet.
     
  3. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    I've seen several articles that contradict that. I don't take them as gospel, but I don't think the books are closed on the possibilities yet.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612141344.htm

    http://io9.com/5277700/scientists-measure-communication-between-quantum-entangled-atoms

    http://www.narutoforums.com/archive/index.php/t-385076.html

    It doesn't help the hucksters are getting into the act. I'm seeing a lot of articles that try to use quantum entanglement for self help, by allowing people to see where the changes of their life occurred (my BS detector is clicking away). We'll see many other schemes soon too.

    If the science articles are to be believed we already have used the principle for a rather high S/N communication though.
     
  5. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
    If you look behind the facts in these cases no energy is being transmitted FTL. The actual data is pre-encoded into quantum information (image, the vibrating atoms) and actually transmitted at non-FTL speeds then decoded back to the actual data at the other side.

    So if you viewed the other quantum cat image on the other side of the universe and it moved in some way you could not know if it was a random movement or if the image on the other side moved unless you could compare the two. What's 'spooky' is that when you use energy to compare the two, the changes seems to have happened at the same time. So if we never see or measure the other image do the changes actually happen?
     
  6. praondevou

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 9, 2011
    2,936
    488
    I was trying to find out if someone has any information on WHAT limits the speed of light / electromagnetic radiation.
    No scientist seems to be able to give an answer to WHY the speed of light is limited to what it is.
     
  7. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
    Because that's the speed limit.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. praondevou

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 9, 2011
    2,936
    488
    Reminds me of parents who say to their questioning children "because no/yes".
    And the children continue to ask "but why???" :D:D:D
     
  9. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    It's too bad those darn photons didn't go faster than the speed of light. It would have spawned the newest nerdy sport - photon racing.

    That would have eventually led to such taunting dialog as, "Hey, I'll bet you 100 bucks my photon is faster than yours."
     
  10. THE_RB

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 11, 2008
    5,435
    1,305
    I hate it when idiot journalists say "A = B". Isn't there an IQ entry requirement to journalist school? Apparently not.

    The study "confirms PHOTONS do not travel faster then the speed of light" or more accurately still "confirms the SPECIFIC PHOTONS WE TESTED DID not travel faster than the speed of light"...

    It's logical to assume the top speed of anything is mass related, so (to play the logic out) IF the speed of light is based on the mass of photons, anything lighter than photons will most likely travel faster.
     
  11. toninph

    New Member

    Dec 10, 2010
    14
    1
    It's about "something" going from A to B. That "something" has mass, limiting its speed to the speed of light (Einstein). But what if that "something" is "nothing", i.e. no mass?
    Like "thoughts". Today I (A) thought "I think my wife would like to have pizza" and instantaneously my wife (B) asked "can you make pizza today?"
    Maybe funny, but meant as a serious "?" nevertheless.
     
  12. russ_hensel

    Well-Known Member

    Jan 11, 2009
    818
    47
    And the mass of the photon is ? ( hint, in relavitivity it refers to rest mass ).
     
  13. praondevou

    AAC Fanatic!

    Jul 9, 2011
    2,936
    488
    I liked that and I agree, it's always good to be really specific when stating /confirming something to the public.
     
  14. THE_RB

    AAC Fanatic!

    Feb 11, 2008
    5,435
    1,305
    Unknown to me. I've never been able to weigh one. I'll leave that to the professional guessers...
    ;)
     
  15. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,386
    1,605
    Ohh, pick me PICK ME !!!!

    The photon is massless, hence it travels at c.

    I would assume any particle with any less mass to travel faster then c, but that particle would have negative mass.
     
  16. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,764
    2,534
    Negative mass? A tachyon, or Dark Energy?
     
  17. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,386
    1,605
    Yeah, something like that, but you'd really have to ask one of these UFO contactees who aim to measure each and every photon in existence before saying none of them exceed c.
     
  18. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
    praondevou likes this.
  19. ErnieM

    AAC Fanatic!

    Apr 24, 2011
    7,386
    1,605
    It's astounding! Time is fleeting. However, it begs the question "what would spacetime be moving in?"

    Madness takes it's toll.
     
  20. nsaspook

    Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

    Aug 27, 2009
    2,906
    2,158
Loading...